each fall that will become a part of his or her current evaluation dossier. (Example: adjunct, part-time faculty, Chairpersons, Deans, or other administrators who teach courses shall be evaluated by use of the "Student Evaluation of Instruction" instrument.)

• c.The numerical results of the evaluations selected by the faculty member shall be placed in his or her file in April (see Calendar) for use by the supervisor in his or her evaluation of the faculty member. These numerical results are not to be compiled or averaged in any manner considered statistically invalid. Written comments by students shall not be included as part of the faculty member's evaluation, but will be used exclusively, in conjunction with the numerical data, for self-development by the faculty member.
• d.Student evaluations of teaching shall be regularly scheduled campus-wide.
• e.Faculty normally will be evaluated in all courses or sections of courses which they are teaching.
• f.Every instructor shall receive a copy of the compilation of results for each course evaluated, including a typed copy of all student comments from each course evaluation, after the compilation is completed. Results of student evaluations will not be distributed to faculty members until all grades for that term have been submitted to the Office of the Registrar.
• g.The "Student Evaluation of Instruction" instrument that is used on campus will be completed using a computer-scorable answer sheet for ease in compilation of results.
• Peer Review of Self-Evaluation and Curriculum Vitae by Colleagues.

These ratings must reflect the extent to which the faculty member has achieved the benchmarks in the Form PDP/DEA-1. The intent of this system is to moderate the extremes of performance and identify exceptional performance (and failure as well). If all or most of the faculty are rated as exceeding expectations, then the expectations and standards they represent are too low.

A peer review panel shall be appointed in accordance with the stipulations below for each faculty member scheduled to undergo a Comprehensive Peer Review. Each reviewer must review the curriculum vitae, the self-evaluation summary, and any optional documentation, focusing on the Professional Development Plan, as recorded on Form PDP/DEA-1, to determine whether the faculty member has fulfilled the objectives of the Professional Development Plan. Any peer reviewer may request specific documentation of any claim made in the curriculum vitae or in the self-evaluation summary. Peer reviewers will determine whether the faculty member meets unit and University expectations for faculty performance, exceeds those expectations, or fails to meet those expectations in the three categories of teaching effectiveness (professional competence), professional achievement, and service. The benchmarks established by each unit serve as guidelines for what constitutes "meets expectations" and what constitutes "exceeds expectations." On any evaluation form, if the respondent agrees that the faculty member has achieved the benchmarks listed in the faculty member's Form PDP/DEA-1, the respondent must mark the

5-33